Tag Archives: science

Kabbalistic Origins of the Copernican Model

The Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang are the basis to the understanding of the cosmology of modern science. Those who tend to look at things critically have probably found these claims somewhat questionable, and there are claims that these ideas, and others concepts of modern science, such as Evolution, are actually of occult or religious origin. There is also alleged Jesuit involvement in our current understanding of the universe. While there are certainly plenty of material on the internet about this, I decided to take a look at it myself. In this article I’ll focus on Nicolaus Copernicus and his ideas. Next time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

However before I move on, I’d like to share my take on the Jesuits, or the claim you see here and there: “It’s the Jesuits.” Jesuits are actually the first conspiratorial group I ever heard about. When I was a child learned that Jesuits embodied the maxim: the ends justify the means. I’m not sure where I learned, maybe from my parents, but ever since I had had the idea of Jesuits of being some sort of conspiratorial cabal. That was years before I even heard the names Freemason or Illuminati. Then around ten years ago, when I was getting serious about learning about conspiracies and secret societies, I heard from a Christian friend that Jesuits are actually really nice, he said they are sort of like hippies. That confused me greatly.  He seemed to be describing a completely different group from the historical Jesuits. Both because I suppose I associated Jesuits with my former childhood self, and my friend’s confusing comments, I hadn’t looked much into Jesuit conspiracy theories in my conspiracy theorist “career”, but maybe a couple years ago I saw some articles about Jesuit universities.

I’ll this article from NY Times as an example from 2013. It describes how the Jesuit Georgetown college celebrated OUTober, an LGBT gay-parade with students prancing around wearing pink shirts. My friend’s view of Jesuits must have originated from these kind of liberal, tolerant modern Jesuit colleges. The Jesuits have been, and still are, all about pursuing their own nefarious agendas and subverting society’s values. It’s just that the times are different, and they are using different methods nowadays. A few centuries ago they were probably more focused on sequestering knowledge, assassination and more traditional cloak and dagger stuff, now they are putting on a benevolent mask and are engaging in social engineering, such as LGBT agenda.

Yet I still do not agree that “it is the Jesuits”. You see and hear these people saying “it’s the Jesuits and that guy never mentions the Jesuits, so he must be a shill”. The next guy says: “No, it’s actually the Freemasons. You’re the shill.” Whereas the third guy claims: “It’s the Jews.” I think these groups, and many others are part of the secret society control system, but I do not know who or what group is on top of it all, nor do I trust anyone who claims they know the truth, unless they are a member of the group that rules over all other groups.


Copernicus and Kabbalah

Let’s move on to Nicolaus Copernicus and the heliocentric model of the solar system. Before Copernicus’ theories, most Europeans believed in the geocentric Ptolemaic system. According to Wikipedia, Copernicus had formulated his theory already in 1510, but his book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death in 1543. Interestingly in the Controversy-section of the article it states:

“The immediate result of the 1543 publication of Copernicus’s book was only mild controversy. At the Council of Trent (1545–63) neither Copernicus’s theory nor calendar reform (which would later use tables deduced from Copernicus’s calculations) were discussed. It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani going unheeded. Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo.”

I suppose the Catholic church created the controversy on purpose, since Copernicus’ theories had not caught on in the regular people. So they turned Galileo into this oppressed anti-hero basically to advertise the Copernican model as the new and exciting thing that the establishment supposedly is afraid. Sort of how they got a lot of people, myself included, to support Donald Trump. (Although my support of him wasn’t really so much because the establishment pretended to hate him, but because of Hillary Clinton and Pizzagate, but that’s another story.)

Let’s get back to Copernicus. His book was called “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres”. Just the name itself reminds me of the Tree of Life of Kabbalah and Sephiroth spheres on it, or the Norse World Tree with the hanging worlds on it.


I used to think this similarity pretty much proves there is some truth to Kabbalah and the ancient myths, but now I am skeptical of the modern cosmology, so I am more inclined to think the “scientists” who have been pushing this model do so because their religion says so. Nowadays many of the flat earthers believe in the Biblical geocentric, domed-model. I suppose I am one of them, but I am happy to admit I could be wrong. There does seem to be some sort spiritual and scientific battle between these two religious concept going on. One of them could be right, and one wrong, or perhaps both are simply religious ideas.

Anyway, the heliocentric model that Copernicus was pushing is rather Kabbalistic. A Kabbala site called Revealing Science of God says: “It should be noted that the 16th century also witnessed perhaps the first scientific verification of Kabbalist teaching with the book written by Copernicus. The Kabbalists never taught the Earth to be the center of the universe, and Copernicus’ discovery proved them right.”

Another blogger on WordPress had written an article titled: “Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods”. He quotes Copernicus saying: “Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations…” This sort of reasoning does indeed seem Kabbalistic.

Torahscience.org has an article states that the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament, has a geocentric universe. However, when a “holy” Rabbi Ruzhiner was presented with Copernicus’ theories, people expected him to deny them, however the Rabbi responded as follows:

“When he was informed of this, the Holy Ruzhiner remained completely composed and his response was a very special one. He said that whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth depends on the service of the tzaddikim, the righteous Jews of the generation. The answer to the question of “What revolves around what?” is not an absolute answer. If, for instance, the tzaddikim in this generation would serve God in a manner in which it would be correct to see Pluto as the center of the solar system, then in some mysterious way scientific discoveries would adapt to reflect that change.”

Those “tzaddikim” are probably the good Jews who believe in Kabbalah and the Talmud instead of the Torah.

Later on the article gives another example of this: “Accordingly, the variation between geocentricism and heliocentricism can be compared to a difference between a service of God that sees man (on earth) as the center, with God, as it were, revolving around man and caring for all of man’s needs; or perceiving God as the center, whereby man is obligated to God and His commandments.”

According to Kabbalah, it would seem, anything can be anything as long as you can bullshit and fast talk others to believe in it. Even the laws of nature and God are subject one’s ability to make stuff up. I have noticed similar things have permeated all aspects of modern society. Feminism is one example. They say rape is power + privilege, and since White women have them, they cannot be raped. Alternatively, a woman who had consensual sex with man can turn the act post coitum into a rape if she regrets later her promiscuity. Once again, twisting words around can supposedly change reality to suit one’s needs.

I do not know whether Nicolaus Copernicus had studied the Kabbalah, but he did seem to adhere to many Kabbalistic notions. I also do not know if there is any connection between Copernicus and the Jesuits. The Jesuit order was officially formed 1540 and Copernicus died 1543, so it is possible they might have had something to do with it, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of this.


The Catholics

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that during Copernicus’ lifetime, the Catholic church seemed to be fine with his theories:

“Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus’s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out. Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.”

So Pope Clement VII, who appears to have died before Copernicus, reacted favourably to his theories, and the Pope who succeeded him was Paul III to whom Copernicus dedicated his book. Had the Catholic church been hostile to Copernicus’ theories, you might interpret this as a kind of FU from Copernicus, however it does not appear that was the case. There probably were many individuals who did not appreaciate his un-Biblical cosmology, but overall, as Stanford Encyclopedia stated, the heliocentric system was not a heresy.

Interestingly, as is mentioned above, Pope Paul III’s advisor, Bartolomeo Spina, wanted to condemn Copernicus’ book, and presumably he could have influenced the Pope as well, but he fell ill and died. Convenient, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps he was poisoned. His Wikipedia page doesn’t say much, but it says Bartolomeo Spina was involved in prosecuting witches, so he probably understood the Copernical model as the occult concept that it is.

There are some claims that Nicolaus Copernicus may have been a prist. At least he did not marry, and he was a member of the Third Order of Saint Dominic, which is some sort of lay Dominican order. The New Advent website states:

“After his university studies Copernicus practised medicine for six years (1506-1512) at Heilsberg, being sought by bishops and princes, but especially by the poor, whom he served gratis. There is no document to show that Copernicus ever received higher orders. His medical practice, which was only private, would not speak against him being a priest, and the fact that in 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.”

So he might have died a Catholic priest. I’ve uncovered no evidence of any involvement of Jesuits with Copernicus himself. The Catholic church, however, did seem be in good relations with him.

Copernicus certainly seems to have been influenced by the Kabbalah, and it was all approved by the Catholic church.

Next time I’ll focus on the Big Bang theory and it’s obvious occult origins.



A Rainbow Over Catholic Colleges
How Georgetown Became a Gay-Friendly Campus: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/how-georgetown-became-a-gay-friendly-campus.html

Nicolaus Copernicus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

One Possible History of Kabbalism: http://www.revealingscienceofgod.com/index.php?page=one-possible-history-of-kabbalism

Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods: https://migchels.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/copernicus-and-his-kabbalistic-methods/

Science Versus Torah?: http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/astronomy_rav2.htm

Nicolaus Copernicus: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

Bartolommeo Spina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolommeo_Spina

Do you have a calling to be Third Order of St. Dominic?: http://www.sacredheart-op.org/Vocations.htm

Copernicus: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/the-jesuits-the-globe-earth-the-mother-of-all-conspiracies.html


The Masses just want a Pantheon to Worship

The masses don’t care about truth, they just want a good story. There’s all this talk of the Awakening in the alternative media, and I see it happening, whether or not in the end it turns out to be real or made in Hollywood. One particular version of the Awakening is that everybody “gets it”, everybody sees through the lies we’ve been fed and becomes enlightened or whatever. While this scenario of the masses waking up does seem appealing, I’ve always found it hard to believe, as I’ve mentioned previously.

The way I see it is, there has always been the masses and there will always be the masses. They are endearing in their simplicity and aggravating in their ignorance. Contrasted to the masses there is the minority consisting of various types of people from saints and sages, to real evil psychopaths and other nasty folk, to just eccentrics and weirdos. The masses always want someone else to tell them who they are and how they should live their lives. A few centuries ago in Europe they were told they are Christian, the earth was created by God in seven days and Jesus died for their sins. Before that they were told to believe in Zeus and Apollo or Odin and Thor and so forth. Now they are told to believe in Science, Evolution and Progress. The Christian pantheon consisted of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, Virgin Mary, angels and so on. The Science pantheon consists of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and so on. The masses don’t really understand the ideas brought forward by the members of their pantheon; they know just know the basics that Darwin came up with Evolution and Einstein discovered the theory of relativity. It sounds good enough so they accept it.

The masses want a mythology to tell them what and who they are. It’s like watching a movie, you know it’s fake, but as long as anything in the story does not seem too fake you want to believe it. The masses do this with reality. They don’t want to question the details; “is this how it really works?”, “is this true?”. As long as it sounds good enough, it doesn’t matter for them whether or not it is actually true.

It’s not that any of the above-mentioned pantheons and mythologies (others not mentioned here) are inherently wrong. I think there’s both truth and lies mixed in with each mythology. What I’ve always had trouble grasping is the blind acceptance of the masses of their particular ethnic mythology. This extends from religious and scientific mythologies to politics and social habits. A thousand years ago we had the feudal system, and each country had a king, which is something the masses accepted without question, even though they might bicker over who would be the best king. Now we have democracy, president and the parliament, and they bicker over who should be running the system without questioning why we have the system in the first place.

Some people probably have an inherent connection to the truth, and they wish to attack the falsehood within each society, and usually they pay the price for it. An example of these people would be Socrates, Giordano Bruno or Nikola Tesla, assuming the stories about those men are true. Then there are people like me, who don’t really have any great understanding of the truth, but rather lack the ability to accept the dogma of their society without question. It’s not that I necessarily have the solution to many of ours problems, but I’ve always had a hard time accepting things as they are. Why is this how things are done, couldn’t it be done differently, is this correct? I’ve usually had questions, not so many answers. From my point it’s still better than blind acceptance.

Then there’s always the bit of humanity of real assholes. Malicious conspirators who want to fuck up things even more. And more often than not, they make the masses listen to them and turn against the good guys who try to warn us, as Bill Hicks put it.

Where I’m getting here is not necessarily that the masses are wrong, or that the bad guys are wrong. They are who they are and follow their nature. Where society usually goes wrong, especially in modern times, that we assume we are all equal and leave the masses to their ignorance, which eventually leads them to become minions of the evil conspirators. It is the duty of the minority to make sure that does not happen, and to help the good guys let their message be aired. In a sense humanity of divided into a few different classes (to simplify a complex issue): the masses, and the minority which consists of the bad guys, the good guys and the rest of us. I think there is a profound spiritual difference between those who have the capability to question the pantheon and mythology of their society, and those who cannot. I don’t think it’s merely an issue of intelligence, education or courage. I think it’s deeper than that, even though all three do play a part in it.

“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”

– Plato


P.S. Even though we are heading toward a society where questioning things is becoming accepted, or even fashionable, and the “truth movement” is growing does not mean the masses would truly begin to question their society. Rather the masses will adopt a pantheon where questioning is part of the mythology. Questioning can become a superficial ritual where feigning free thought is applauded, whereas free thought itself is non-existent, even abhorred. From my viewpoint such people are and always will be simulacra.

Let’s get rid of Emotional Attachments to Words

Words are used to program us by creating emotional attributes to them. We hear a certain word, and we’re supposed feel a certain way and therefore act a certain way. Terrorism; fear. Conspiracy; crazy. Some words create opposite emotional results based on the culture of the person hearing it. For atheists the word God brings up images of stupid, irrational belief and for theists it brings a positive sentiment. For many atheists the word science evokes positive images of almost God-like infallibility, whereas a lot of people who have realized the so-called scientific institutions are as corrupt as any other institution, the very word science might bring up negative images.

The best thing is to get rid of our emotional investments into words. A thing either is, or is not, something. Bombing civilians either is or is not an act of terror. It does not matter how you feel about it, or about the word terrorism. 9/11, or even the existence of civilization, is a or is not a conspiracy. It does not matter what conspiracy theory you prefer to explain it, or if you prefer to think the word conspiracy is meaningless. Instead of arguing whether or not God exists, someone should first explain what is God.

Words are also hi-jacked by certain groups. For example, God has been hi-jacked by churches and religious institutions, as if it belonged to them. Science has been hi-jacked by academic institutions. Only governments can determine what constitutes an act of terrorism.

My pet peeves about this hi-jacking are words such as skepticism, science and of course conspiracy. When I was a child, I used to think of myself as a skeptic, i.e. being skeptical of things “everybody knew” to be true. Such as we “knew” UFOs were not alien space craft or anything interesting like that. We “knew” there was no telepathy or telekinesis. Being a skeptic I liked to entertain the opposite view, that maybe we don’t know the truth about it. However, it seems the word skeptic has been hi-jacked by people who have no skeptical bone in their body. They just accept what the establishment wants them to. Of science and conspiracy I’ve written before. Science should merely refer to the process of looking for the truth, with no external attachments either way. The word science itself should be bland and neutral, yet for a lot of “believers” the very word science invokes joy and grandeur. Researchers should be excited about individual objects of their research, but science itself should not elicit strong emotional responses. Conspiracy also is a fairly normal social act perpetrated by human being for various reasons. There is nothing odd or crazy about it, nor should every act of conspiracy be somehow connected to the Illuminati.

I think words and language are quite interesting. Yet by adding emotional triggers to words, one diminishes the multi-dimensional purpose of each word. Words mean something, your emotional complexes don’t. At least not to other people. Especially since most of them have been programmed into you by others.

Science vs Spirituality

I want to talk about what the word spirituality means to me. I have no interest to go into the semantics of the word here or the dictionary definitions, but the spirit, the actual real world meaning behind the word. For me spirituality means connection to the truth. That is when religious people say they have a connection to God or Jesus, they are expressing their spiritual understanding of the world. Whether or not they are actually being spiritual, or merely delusion, is another story. To explain what connection to the truth means, we have to look at another word; science.

Science, to me, means knowledge of the truth. Although in our world the word science has two almost opposite meanings, and I sometimes use it as both. The actual meaning is, as I just stated, knowledge of the truth, and from that we can expand into the scientific method which is simply search for knowledge of the truth. The mockery of science perpetrated by all sorts of hierarchical institutions is a religion with pre-set dogma that one should not mess with that is originally based on a few scientific, or seemingly scientific, observations. Yet from there the institutions grew into something horrendous.

What is the difference between understanding and knowledge of the truth, then? Understanding is an innate, subjective grasp of the truth and the ability to use the truth to do something in the real world, whereas knowledge is more second hand information that you may understand rationally, but not being able to do anything with the knowledge. Let’s take sex as an example. Every “normal” teenager in our modern culture understands some of the basics of how sex works; the difference between girls and boys, what goes in where, and what can be born afterwards. Whether or not the teen has any personal experience with sex they learn these concepts from TV, school sex ed class (hardly) or from friends. The actual experience of sex is, however, quite different to all of the expectations and worries a person might have beforehand. Understanding is more tied to experience and being able to practice something, and knowledge is more abstract, an idea you heard somewhere.

You might argue that knowledge and understanding mean the same thing, but that doesn’t matter. In this case I’m using them in this way to illustrate something.

Our schools (in the best case scenario) teach knowledge. They teach science, not spirituality, i.e. they teach abstract ideas which some students might be able to incorporate into their lives in a beneficial way, but it doesn’t work the same for everyone. And that is not the fault of the student. Perhaps somewhat contradictorily this teaching method where we sit in class and listen to the teacher works better for more practical professions, and not so well for abstract ones. It is partially due to the memorization which is inherent in our schools. If for example you are studying to be a pharmacist or an engineer you simply have to learn that some things work and others don’t. There is no debate on whether or not a cardboard box can be used to support a block of metal weighing a ton. In more abstract matters such as the study of history, archeology, metaphysics and theology there is never an easy answer. That does mean, however, that there is no truth behind it. We can and should have debates over when were the pyramids of Egypt built and by whom, what exists beyond the physical, is there a God, or rather what is God, and what is the meaning of life. The deeper you go into realms abstract and spiritual, the more difficult it begins to have a definite answer. There is a definite answer to who built the pyramids, even if we’ll never find it out, but there is an answer. The same does not necessarily apply to metaphysical matters, which does not mean it is a waste of time to ask the questions. You might even find an answer, yet the trick is the answer is going to subjective. The truth is objective, but the answer is not.

This ambivalence has lead much of the scientific world to regard the spiritual as meaningless, delusional or quaint entertainment at best. That is not true, however. If you don’t see meaning in something, does not mean there is none, it simply means you don’t see it, such as you looking at a text written in Aramaic and not being able to read it. The shortsightedness of the “scientific” institutions has blinded the world from the spiritual reality, which is real. The very distinct difference is that the scientific truth can be told, but the spiritual truth cannot. As the cliché goes “No-one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself.”

Most of our so-called spiritual institutions, churches and temples have nothing to do with spirituality, which is very well illustrated by the amount of non-religiousness in the modern world. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Yet a lot of people throw the baby out with bath water as they see the churches being either evil or simply irrelevant, they conclude that spirituality is irrelevant. So basically we have people rejecting spirituality because of our scientific institutions and religious institutions. There is no other way into the truth except through personal spiritual understanding of reality, whatever you perceive that to be. Scientific knowledge can be valuable, it can aid us in our quest for spiritual truth, but it can also hold us down if we are afraid to step off the plank. Most of the technological achievements our civilization is so proud of are nothing but toys and trinkets. Sounds advice should be taken to heart, whether the source is scientists, your grandma or a drunk on the street, but in the end you must use your own judgement.

In conclusion, science is nice, it is simply not enough. It’s nice having this computer to be able to write this blog, use the internet and play Civilization V, but if human society weren’t in such an unspiritual state already, maybe I shouldn’t have to resort to it. Ultimately the “contest” between science and spirituality comes to down to the immortal Sean Connery quote “Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.”